Recommended Posts

Basically, a cohost of a hunting show won an auction to hunt an aging, non breeding endangered black rhino. Black rhinos have a population of 5,000 in the world, but this one can't breed, he's too old. The $350,000 winning bid goes to conservation.

So now the guy is getting plenty of death threats and he's done interviews 'my 2 year old daughter is being threatened, my beautiful young wife is being threatened.' I like how he adds 'beautiful young wife.'

Share this post

Link to post

I don't know how people even decide to have any position on stuff like this. Most of us eat meat. Even those who don't, benefit from humanity killing animals in other ways like by using clothes made of fur or whatever, using medicaments that exist because of advances in medicine thanks to cruel experiments on animals, etc. Even if you somehow manage to avoid getting any benefit at all from humanity killing animals by starting living on a deserted island, you'll have to then eat vegetables or something but can you really say that they're different from animals. Maybe they can be considered alive too. So basically people can't really exist without massively killing some other life forms, it's just that sometimes it looks more indirect but that doesn't change the fact that we all benifit from that. So I don't know if you can honestly criticize someone for killing some rhino without being a bigaaaaaaaass hypocrite.

Share this post

Link to post

I feel the guy's not the noble hero he thinks himself to be (he's still a vain, primitive trophy hunter), but he does have a point. I'm pretty sure the reservation will like the 350 kilodollars for their cause more than the moral outrage in the discussion sections over the internet. If the people running the reservation think this will help their cause, I don't feel qualified to tell them otherwise from the comfort of my chair. And even I know there's such a thing as the old mean killer males in bear, elephant or ape populations.

But you know what'd be even better? Using all those fucking drones military has to patrol the reservations, identify poachers and then trace them to the Chinese and Vietnamese smugglers of horn/ivory.

Share this post

Link to post

So I don't know if you can honestly criticize someone for killing some rhino without being a bigaaaaaaaass hypocrite.

Are you just trolling or are you for real?

I think you're serious, so allow me to retort. There is a difference between slaughtering a pig that was raised as food for humans, and slaughtering a rhino for fun. There is also a difference between killing a member of an enormously populous species like a pig, and killing a member of a species on the brink of extinction, like said rhino. I an not a hypocrite for saying that people who fuel the ivory trade are deeply in the wrong. Yes, I eat meat, and animals get killed for me. But slaughtering livestock is way more responsible than killing rhinos.

In this particular case, it really doesn't matter, because they would have had to kill that rhino anyway. It's the mentality of such people that gets to me.

Share this post

Link to post

I'm not sure I understand why killing for food is ok but killing for fun itn't. Still sounds a bit like double standards. Like maybe you could eat salad for dinner instead but no, you prefer to kill that animal and eat its meat. Also I'm not sure if caring about endangered species more than about uhh normal species isn't hypocrisy. Like ohhh, there are 3451253 more lions in the world so fuck them let's eat them. But ohhh, there are only 234 rhinos in the world so let's now care about them. I'm not trolling but everytime people try to draw the line between "ok to kill in this case" and "not ok in this case" I feel so much hypocrisy in that.

Share this post

Link to post

It's not hypocrisy: it's a numbers game. We place more value on rare things that are more likely to disappear. Note that nobody gives a shit about the individual rhino: they just care about numbers. Well, except for those who criticize sport hunting of any kind.

Share this post

Link to post

People do what they want for fun. Maybe these people are secretly upset that he's got the $350,000 to waste. The bid that he won that will make him a 15 minute celebrity that his hunting show never made him.

Hope the check doesn't bounce.

Do people eat lion? I hear people make meatballs out of cat.

I just hope that its an actual challenge for the guy. Like he has to drive out into Africa or whatever to hunt this sterile yet still dangerous rhino and its not just drive through a wilderness preserve, tracking a tagged elderly animal and snipes it from 100 yards to declare victory.

If its some elderly rhino, give the guy a knife and say now its fair.

Maybe his idea of a hunt is capturing it alive. Its more of a challenge to take something alive. Perhaps to keep it as a pet.

Share this post

Link to post

Whether it's by a hunter or wildlife specialist, the rhino is going to be killed regardless. The question is will this encourage more demand for hunting? Answer: No, because it's not trophy hunters that are a threat, it's billionaires over in the Orient who do not want the creature as a trophy, but as a luxurious placebo or food stuff.

As long as the horn is destroyed, $350,000 is better in the hands of preserve than a poacher.

Share this post

Link to post

I'm not trolling but everytime people try to draw the line between "ok to kill in this case" and "not ok in this case" I feel so much hypocrisy in that.

[righteouswarriorwisdom]

I think you should watch Savage Man, Savage Beast between the sensationalist "Cinema Verite" scenes, there's a pretty accurate psycho-social analysis of the ethos behind hunting, doing battle and, in general, killing. Killing for a morally justified reason and ascribing a precise meaning to killing is what actually separates man from beast.

However, as human cultures and societies can vary, so do the attitudes towards killing, whether it's killing an animal or another man. However, the only thing in common among even vastly separated cultures is this: no culture condones killing without an acceptable reason within that same culture, which pretty much boild down to no culture justifying completely random killing. Even "amok" killings have a justification, albeit supernatural/superstitious, but its accepted within its own culture, which is all that matters.

If that wasn't the case, then how come ridiculous justifications such as "defending my honor", "mofo was looking at me the wrong way", "mofo was dissin' me", "mofo looked my sister the wrong way" etc., gang shootings and even the infamous "My Way killings" in the Philippines are MUCH more acceptable in the mainstream media than spree/school shooters? Answer: the latter appear completely random, hence unpredictable, hence a danger to society, as they cannot be framed in a cultural context, not even a backwards "warrior's code". BTW, controlling/justifying certain forms of killings (and in general, keeping the Warrior classes at check and allowing society to function) is also part of the reason why there have always been "warrior codes", "codes of honour" etc.

In modern societies with a functional rule of law, the latter are usually replaced by the blanket concept of "State's monopoly on violence". In other words, a cop can fuck you up as bad as he wishes because he has the right to do it.

[/righteouswarriorwisdom]

As for the hunting haters, in this case I'd say they are simply jelly for not being able (most of them) to shell out $350K for the privilege of playing the part of the Big White Hunter :-p

After all, I believe that most criticism towards hunting is mostly based on repressed classist jealousy: traditionally, hunting was an activity reserved for the various Lords and Kings, and some forms of hunting (like the infamous British Fox Hunt) have a heavy class struggle symbolism: because, what do the hunters represent, if not the Lords and Kings who send their lackeys (the hunting dogs) to quell the troublesome, rebel peasant or rogue (The Fox)?

This view IMO is strengthened even more by the fact that the "hunters", in this particular type of hunt, don't do much other than riding around in fancy clothes (just like Lords and Kings), while the lackeys do all the dirty work, including killing the fox, which is not even edible game. Plus, the overwhelming odds (a pack of hunters + a pack of dogs vs a single fox) symbolize, what else, the futility of going against the Upper Classes.

Now, in the case of African Big Game hunting, there are probably other unfortunate implications like the Big White Hunter, the Little Black Men acting as porters, that whole 19th century colonial feeling...

I just hope that its an actual challenge for the guy. Like he has to drive out into Africa or whatever to hunt this sterile yet still dangerous rhino and its not just drive through a wilderness preserve, tracking a tagged elderly animal and snipes it from 100 yards to declare victory.

It's unlikely that he'll go on such a hunt without being sided by a) a game warden who will oversee everything and b) one or more P.H. (Professional Hunter) along with a skinning/medical/backup shooters' crew, in case anything goes wrong. The game warden and PH are pretty much compulsory. And yeah, like it or not, most of the dirty work associated with Big Game Hunting in Africa, including tracking, cornering and even )dangerous) incapacitating shots are done by the P.H., with the client only having to deliver the finishing shot.

Share this post

Link to post

The rhino can't breed. Plenty of other animals get hunted for sport every day. This one's actually going to benefit conservation, unlike the rest. I can't give a shit, I can't understand why anyone would.

How about instead of harassing this guy, these armchair conservationists actually do one thing to make the world a better place? Maybe make a 350K donation to this reserve?

Share this post

Link to post

The rhino can't breed. Plenty of other animals get hunted for sport every day. This one's actually going to benefit conservation, unlike the rest. I can't give a shit, I can't understand why anyone would.

Even among politicized environmentalists there's a divide between those that advocate practicing "selective hunting" (the prey of choice are old or otherwise unfit animals) and those that consider all forms of hunting abhorrent. There even is a very famous mountaineer, adventurer & also hunter who also got involved in Italian politics in the Green Party, and came under flac for his advocating in favor of "selective hunting".

So basically the "Big White Hunter" of this story had the misfortune of gaining the attention of one of the most combative and politicized activists existing nowadays: environmentalists. If only there were people that determined against e.g. economists, the IMF, the EU etc...

Share this post

Link to post

I'm not sure I understand why killing for food is ok but killing for fun itn't. Still sounds a bit like double standards. Like maybe you could eat salad for dinner instead but no, you prefer to kill that animal and eat its meat.

We as a humanity have evolved from basic principles of surviving by feasting on those weaker than us (and also trying not to eat those of same specy, at least most of times). There's no way to change that, sorry. Killing for food is a-okay, evolution likes it that way.

Memfis said:

Also I'm not sure if caring about endangered species more than about uhh normal species isn't hypocrisy.

To be fair, I find the whole endangered species thing to be somewhat useless. There's just a bunch of leftover survivors, evolution will take care of them sooner or later but most likely sooner. Humans won't change that, and even if they try, the outcome will be rather laughable from the more time-scoped point of view. Chances are we'll cause extinction of all of them anyway, including ourselves. There's bazillion of animals that became extinct over time and it didn't bring any consequences because that's just how things were supposed to be.

Share this post

Link to post

I'm all for hunting for food and supplies. It's something humans across the world have been doing since the dawn of time and its the natural balance of things. But, sport hunting and selective hunting are both bullshit. Selective hunting no matter how nice you make it sound is wrong. Predatory animals target the old, sometimes sick and weak in order to feed themselves and balance the prey species. Yes, at on time we did the same but, humanity has moved so far past that. When we hunt selectively, we are potentially denying another animal its meal.

Share this post

Link to post

When we hunt selectively, we are potentially denying another animal its meal.

Hey, fuck that other animal. It simply means it was not smart, fast and strong enough to go for the kill before we did. It's a sedond-tier predator at best, while we're fucking dominating' first-tier all the way, baby. No matter how you see it, it's STILL inter-species competition for hunting turf and prey ;-)

Share this post

Link to post

Hey, fuck that other animal. It simply means it was not smart, fast and strong enough to go for the kill before we did. It's a sedond-tier predator at best, while we're fucking dominating' first-tier all the way, baby. No matter how you see it, it's STILL inter-species competition for hunting turf and prey ;-)

That's actually a strange notion. We, as a species, have become so advanced that we take pity on others not as successful as us. That is a first.

Share this post

Link to post

That's actually a strange notion. We, as a species, have become so advanced that we take pity on others not as successful as us. That is a first.

A pie-in-the-sky idealistic vision, easily disproven by reading any history book, watching any news broadcast, following an everyday stock market session, watching any competitive sport or simply undertaking a job inteview. And it takes little nowadays to go from "more successful that thou" to the "less successful than thou" category. When was the last time you saw anyone receiving pity or genuine sympathy for it? Just saying "Oh poor devil, he lost his job/got ill/the sky fell on him" doesn't count as "pity" ;-)

Share this post

Link to post

That's actually a strange notion. We, as a species, have become so advanced that we take pity on others not as successful as us. That is a first.

Not entirely, since altruism has been seen in other animal species too. Mostly, but not only, primates.

What is a first, however, is our confusion between predation and parasitism. Predators hunt when they're hungry, and are quiet when fed. A well-fed lion will quietly nap while a herd of antelopes prance around him. Humans who like to consider themselves to be predators, on the other hand, hunt and hunt and hunt all the time, without stopping, because they hunt for hunting rather than for feeding. In doing so, they are like parasites who cannot help but gorge themselves as much as possible until their host dies. Humans have no concept of satiety. The aim isn't to make a living, but to make a killing.

Share this post

Link to post

Humans have no concept of satiety. The aim isn't to make a living, but to make a killing.

This kind of behavior has been observed with some of the most intelligent predators like household cats and Orcas: both have been observed killing for fun/playing with their prey, so perhaps a "game face" mentality and a desire to act violent beyond what is necessary for mere survival is a prerogative of sufficiently individually intelligent species.

Simpler-minded (e.g. sharks, reptiles) or pack predators (e.g. wolves, lions), while they may be just as efficient at killing, their actions also mostly dictated by instict and somewhat reflexive, they don't seem to be motivated by an own willpower or simply by taking pleasure in what they do, while more intelligent species do. Willpower = initiative = aggression.

It's no wonder that lobotomy in humans, while making an individual docile, also makes him apathetic, helpless, and incapable of initiative.

Share this post

Link to post

wtf? Now I understand why Mr. T wore those chains, because he wanted a gold lanyard.

I got to meet Mr. T at a party in his rich neighborhood when I was young. It was far after the A-Team show and before the 1800collect commercials. Really nice guy. He didn't stay long, I think his fame was getting to him with people flocking to him so he bailed.